: > Does anyone know why normalize ignores the prohibited clauses? was that : > just intended to be an optimization (save time calculating stuff for : > clauses we don't care about scoring in depth) ... ? : : A prohibited clause will never occur in any matching document, so it : will never need to take part in any score value calculation.
that's true ... but when calculating an Explanation, the only way BooleanWeight.explain has to determine wether or not a clause matched, is by looking at the value of it's Explanation -- if the clause has never been normalized, it's Explanation may be inacurate. As i mentioned... : > ...since prohibited clauses aren't normalized, they sub-weights don't get : > their weights set properly, which means that when the Explanation is : > claculated, they tend to result in an Explanation with a value of "0" ... : > and since they are prohibited, the Explanation for BooleanQuery thinks : > that is a good thing. To elaborate: if a prohibited clause is a TermQuery, and that TermQuery isn't normalized, it will return an Explanation with a value of 0.0f for both matches and non matches. When BooleanWeight.explain sees that the Explanation for the prohibited clause has a value of 0.0f it assumes that ment the clause didn't match. In essense, BooleanWeight.explain relies on a precondition BooleanWeight.normalize doesn't establish. The attachments in LUCENE-557 demonstrate this problem. In particular, take a look at the testBQ* functions in TestSimpleExplanations.java -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
